“Putting Children First”

"Putting Children First"

2015 - 2016

REVISED 3/23/17

Gadsden County Instructional Evaluation System

Roger P. Milton, Superintendent

Dr. Pink Hightower, Deputy Superintendent

Pauline West, Staff Development

1

Coordinator/Human Resources Director

Table of Contents

Section 1: Section 2: Section 3: Section 4: Section 5: Section 6: Section 7: Section 8:

Performance of Students Instructional Practice Other Indicators of Performance Summative Evaluation Score Additional Requirements District Evaluation Procedures District Self-Monitoring Appendix A ? Checklist for Approval

*See special note on page 85 regarding Category I and Category II instructional personnel.

2

Section 1: Performance of Students

The focus of the Gadsden County Instructional Evaluation System is on student growth and achievement outcomes and administrative observation/evaluation. Student growth and achievement outcomes will be measured by assessment data, while administrative observation/evaluation will be measured using the district's currently approved model, Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model, the Art of Science of Teaching Evaluation Framework, previously the Florida State Model of Evaluation System. Fifty percent (50%) will be based on student growth and achievement outcomes, forty-five percent (45%) will be attributed to administrative observation/evaluation which includes the deliberate practice plan score of five percent (5%). Within the first week of school and or an employee's employment, the Gadsden County Instructional Evaluation System will be explain to all instructional personnel as well as administrators. Copies will be made available on the schools' and district's websites.

Instructional Evaluation 100%

100

45 50

5

Administrative Observation/Instructional Practice, 45% Deliberate Practice, 5% Student Growth and Achievement

All instructional personnel, including newly hired classroom teachers, evaluations will be based on the performance of students criterion as outlined in s. 1012.34(3)(a)1., F.S., along with an explanation of the scoring method, including how calculated and combined [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(a)1., F.A.C.] and [Rule 6A5.030(2)(a)2., F.A.C.]. Additionally, the district shall provide confirmation of student performance data for at least three years, including the current year and the two years immediately preceding the current year, when available. If less than the three most recent years of data are available, those years for which data are available will be used. If more than three years of student performance data are used, the data representing those years will be specified. [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(a)3., F.A.C.].

Gadsden County will accept the state determined VAM score of each teacher. This score will be a 1-4 score, indicated by U to HE. The chart below demonstrates how this score will be converted to points for the summative evaluation score:

3

Student Performance Measure Cut Scores:

VAM Score Conversion 4 3

2

1

Categorical Score Highly Effective

Effective Needs

Improvement/Developing Unsatisfactory

= Points 4 3

2

1

Non-VAM Score Conversion (this will be used for

assessments that don't have a conversion chart listed within

the document)

76 ? 100% growth, achievement, or proficiency on

any non-VAM assessment

51 ? 75% growth, achievement, or proficiency on

any non-VAM assessment 26 ? 50% growth,

achievement, or proficiency on any non-VAM assessment

0 ? 25% growth, achievement, or proficiency on any nonVAM assessment

Categorical Score

Highly Effective Effective Needs

Improvement/Developing Unsatisfactory

= Points

4 3 2 1

Concerning instructional personnel of students for courses assessed by statewide, standardized assessments under s. 1008.22, F.S., VAM results will comprise at least one-half of their evaluations. [Rule 6A-5.030(2)(a)4., F.A.C.]. However, for the first evaluation of the newly hired and for both evaluations of all non-VAM instructional personnel (those who are not classroom teachers and classroom teachers of students for courses not assessed by statewide, standardized assessments), the district will allow the site based principal to determine the student performance measure for use for performing the non-VAM calculation for scoring their evaluations pursuant to Rule 6A-5.030(2)(a)5., F.A.C. and Rule 6A-5.030(2)(a)6., F.A.C.

4

Plan for Student Performance Measures

Student Performance Measure:

All instructional personnel will include student performance data for at least three years, including the current year and the two years immediately preceding the current year, when available. If less than the three most recent years of data are available, those years for which data are available will be used. [Rule 6A-5.030(2) (a) 3. F.A.C.]

For classroom teachers of students for courses assessed by statewide, standardized assessments under s. 1008.22, F.S., VAM results will comprise one-half of the evaluation Rule 6A5.030(2)(a)4., F.A.C.].

All classroom teachers of students for courses not assessed by statewide, will be provided standardized assessments, the district-determined student performance measure(s) [Rule 6A5.030(2) (a) 5. F.A.C.].

All instructional personnel who are not classroom teachers will be provided the districtdetermined student performance measure(s) [Rule 6A-5.030(2) (a) 6. F.A.C.].

All instructional personnel will have the opportunity to review their class rosters for accuracy and to correct any mistakes [Rule 6A-5.030(2) (f) 1. F.A.C.]

Teaching Assignment

Pre-Kindergarten (PK)

Kindergarten (K) First Grade (1)

Second Grade (2) Third Grade (3) Fourth Grade (4)

Fifth Grade (5) Other (K-5), including nonclassroom instructional personnel

Performance Measure(s) for Evaluation Purposes

Florida VPK Assessment or Teaching Strategies GOLD (administered 3 times each) i-Ready Diagnostic Assessment

i-Ready Diagnostic Assessment

i-Ready Diagnostic Assessment

FSA Mathematics/ELA (VAM)

FSA Mathematics/ELA (VAM)

FSA Mathematics/ELA; FCAT Science NGSSS FSA Mathematics/ELA or district assessment as it pertains to instructional assignment

Percentage Associated with Final Summative

Evaluation 50%

50% 50%

50%

50% 50%

50%

50%

5

Math Courses (6-8)

Science Courses (8)

English/Language Arts/Reading Courses (68)

Other (6-8), including nonclassroom instructional personnel Civics

English 1

English 2

English 3

English 4

AP English Comp Algebra 1; Algebra 1 Honors; Algebra 1B Geometry; Geometry Honors Biology 1; Biology 1 Honors; Biology Technology; Biology 1 PreIB; Integrated Science 3; Integrated Science 3 Honors United States History

ROTC

Other (9-12), including non-classroom instructional personnel District Non-Classroom Instructional Personnel

FSA Mathematics, FSAA, IEP learning targets, Algebra 1 EOC or Geometry EOC assessments FCAT Science NGSSS

FSA ELA, Florida Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment (CELLA), FSAA, IEP learning targets FSA Mathematics/ELA or district assessment as it pertains to instructional assignment Civics EOC

FSA ELA, FSAA

FSA ELA, FSAA

District Assessment

District Assessment

AP Examination Algebra 1 EOC

Geometry EOC

Biology EOC

United States History EOC

District Assessment

FSA Mathematics/ELA or district assessment as it pertains to instructional assignment FSA Mathematics/ELA or district assessments as it pertains to instructional assignment

50% 50% 50%

50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

50% 50% 50%

50%

6

Section 2: Instructional Practice ? District Evaluation Frameworks

Research Base and Validation Studies on the Marzano Evaluation Model The Gadsden County School District currently uses The Marzano Evaluation Model as their evaluation model. The Marzano Evaluation Model is based on a number of previous, related works that include: What Works in Schools (Marzano, 2003), Classroom Instruction that Works (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001), Classroom Management that Works (Marzano, Pickering, & Marzano, 2003), Classroom Assessment and Grading that Work (Marzano, 2006), The Art and Science of Teaching (Marzano, 2007), Effective Supervision: Supporting the Art and Science of Teaching (Marzano, Frontier, & Livingston, 2011). Each of these works was generated from a synthesis of the research and theory. Thus the mode can be considered an aggregation of the research on those elements that have traditionally been shown to correlate with student academic achievement. The model includes four domains: Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors Domain 2: Preparing and Planning Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism The district uses all four domains include 60 elements: 41 in Domain 1, 8 elements in Domain 2, 5 elements in Domain 3 and 6 elements in Domain 4. The specifics of each domain are listed in Figure 1: 2014 Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model Learning Map (2014 Robert J. Marzano, Learning Sciences International) and Figure 2: Marzano Protocol (2014 Robert J. Marzano, Learning Sciences International), which addresses the nine design questions, including examples of teacher and student evidence, the scale, and reflection questions. To reference a detailed discussion of these elements see Effective Supervision: Supporting the Art and Science of Teaching (Marzano, Frontier, & Livingston, 2011).

7

Figure 1: 2014 Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model Learning Map 8

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download